About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 138 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like
to endorse the 3b option on 11th street and grandfathering 34,011th street only. >> commissioner antonini. >>> no. >> hillis yes. >> commissioner sugayaa eye, commissioner fong no. >> that move passes for to three with commissioners antonini, hillis and fong voting against. so i'm want to go make a motion for 113. commissioner sugayaa. >> yeah, i would like to include some language that -- but i do not want to support the language that says we support continued evaluation and the one that is supported by staff and i'm perfectally willing to acknowledge that the process is under way and that we recognize that this process is under way. >>> second. >> commissioner antonini. >>> i would prefer staff language and i think if i'm not missustain, it was objective one 1.5 is that correct? language that makes it quite clear that there is a process already gone gun and that is one that we should be focusing on and while we are improving the shrinkage or down zoning of that area in this plan that we have our eyes forward to that and it doesn't say it's a preferred option and it
. >> commissioner antonini. >> my sediments are the same particularly with january 31 because we're off on the third and i realize it's not the holiday but i know staff has to prepare and the first would cut into their preparation for having a hearing on january 3 but i think we should add the 31 so we have four in that month. i don't think if it doesn't fall on the day that we meet we shouldn't take it off with the exception of the first day of chanukkah was on the five of december and i think we would have that off because i think the holiday is celebrated over a period of days but the first day is the most important and that is up to the discretion of the commissioners and i'm not sure where we could add anything back because we have the holiday at the end of december and early january, so we might only have two hearings in december of this year. >> commissioner board. yeah, i think we want to be. >> >> respectful of the holidays that fall within that window. i would say we meet more often than the board of supervisors in terms they have weekly meetings and the last meeting is the 11 and we have
. >> seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> well i'm certainly fine with hearing it want to but if we can't there is always a chance that we can be continued if we don't hear it at all tonight there is no chance that it will be resolved tonight and so that is up to the project sponsors and others involved if they want to go through with it. >> one option is we could take i guess you have to call the item and say public comment and say that is the only other option i think we have and but, i understand people's desire who have been waiting here all day and unfortunately that has happened on occasion and you know, there is unfortunately not a certainty of a particular time when a project is heard, i do encourage you may not know this but i do encourage members of public, we are televised and you can find us on s f governor to have been.com come and i'll tell you to follow the items and you cannot predict the length of the items but you can see the progression a little bit because i know it's hard to give up an entire day the question that i have
not going to happen. i don't consider that to be an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people are always going to have windows. i don't see any other impacts. the dr request's home is the one that goes furthest into the open space as far as this project is concerned. so i don't see anything unusual or extraordinary in this project. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> i'm sorry, the proper wording is not take dr and approve >> commissioners on that motion to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. (roll call ) so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and puts you on your final item on your calendar, public comment -- have i have no speaker cards. >> is there
that we have right now. last week, commissioner antonini had stated when you add something, you want to take it back. i thought that was a well-spoken remark and that should be applied to this particular new appraisal. also i know that we talked about the building of this home but i also think that we're concerned about the bottom of the hill. we have a foundation that right adjacent to the -- if that's demolished i think there should be some consideration to the demolishment and soundness of the concrete next to our home. thank you for listening to my concerns. >> president fong: thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is jill artolla, and i side at 4008, my husband and i are native san franciscans and have owned our home for more than 30 years. we look forward to living there for a long time as well. i do not recognize many of the people that stood as our neighbors either. i am outside, gardening very often. we are concerned about the loss of light and view of open space after this large home is built. we would like to encourage you to reduce its
: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that p
commissioner antonini. >>> no. >> borden, aye, hillis, commissioners that passes with six to one with commissioner antonini voting against. >>> yeah, the s pc resolution, is transmitted to us by the hp c now do we need too take action of some kind on this or do you want us to acknowledge it? >>> you are not required to take any action, the recommendation that they passed is to the board of supervisor but it's here for you to include it or make recommendations. >> no, i think we have taken acon one of their recommendations which, is to provide land use for prop that are to the of local landmark stot and expand on that and the last bullet are technical changes to the code and the other ones are more policy related and so, i think we are all well and good i don't know if we really need too take specific axon it. >> if i can just point out really quickly, if any of the recommendations specifically related to the area plan, for the amendment to the general area plan if you wanted to adopt any of those, if we don't dhaip now if the board of supervisors changes the proposal for
comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. well, it's an interesting project. and i do want to compliment -- i think the architect is here, if i am not mistaken. from the rendering it looks like not only has the penthouse been added, but the facade is being much improved over what was there in 1966, which was probably not the top of the architectural times. but it is, with the arches and some of the way that the windows are treated with french windows going in and some nice improvements to the facade of the building. but that is not what we're here for, because we're talking more about the impacts that this will have on adjacent properties. and as has been mentioned, two things are not protected, property line windows and views, but we always try to do whatever we can to protect those. we have the matching light wells, which is one way we do it and that will take care of most of the essential windows. and i understand that two property line windows will be recovered, but all the rest of them will not be covered. so i think that is probably done pretty well in that
. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think aside from the parking which i spoke to, the rest of the legislation is well written and it's well done. but i won't be able to support it based upon that part of it. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a resolution recommending with modifications as proposed by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (dagge
carefully listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misu
? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student hosing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when
, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm very much in favor of this proposal and i also live in the neighborhood in west side -- west lakeside village. i'm sorry, west portal frequently. and there are a lot of vacancies. and this particular space is tiny. its frontage is 11-1/2 feet. and, so, it's a very hard thing to fill. and we are losing businesses partly because of what's happening online and i hope that doesn't continue because, you know, i don't shop online and i discourage other people from doing it because it just knocks out jobs for people in retail places. but until we have that turn around, there is going to be this problem with trying to get retail to be vital and there's lots of other spaces. the other thing that impresses me, they're taking 545 feet of their space and turning it into a community room. and the argument that the merchants will go back to meeting and squat and gobble and rebuilt, which will be quite a while. begs a question. a lot of meetings you have, you don't necessarily want to include food and drink also. i go
to work on that aspect of the design. >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i think it's a wonderful project and probably the first that we have seen of it's size that combines a very large commercial building with a residential building and is the epitome of having people working downtown and living downtown and most of the benefit have been stated and i think it's a beautiful design but i'll speak in favor the five-yarr entitlement because my guess is that the measure 1.5 in the t cd p plan that allows for the longer entitlement period is designed to their specificity and i think that although this is about 95,000 square feet short of that $500,000, 500,000 square feet, the overall building is far more than that and the complexity is very complex because you have got go down 65 feet. you have all of the responsibility of shoring against the train box that is being built for the rail extension and if you ever if you ever have a large very complex approval process and very heavy liability concerns, i can't think of a project that would be more difficult than this one w
further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >>> i agree with gym meek coand i'm impressed with the individualization of the buildings and break it up and makes it look like anything else we have seen and i like the industrial elements on exterior and how they support the building and they do have a feel that they block belong to the south of mark and a couple of thing that i would improve upon and continue to work on staff upon is the design on the larger streets and take some clues from the industrial buildings and urn sonoma and the the strength of the corner and is the visual large windows with a lattice exterior which we see so often on garage and is industrial buildings there and also the use of arduouses is often what you see in those areas and those are element that is we will be able to put in which will further individualize the buildings and if we had a few of those elements in their own genre that would be great and i'm not sure that i like the color of the one that has red or pink on the outside but that is something that can b
that we're contemplating? great. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. i
, public comment is closed >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to
to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not substantially the same, so it can come before you within the year. it's fully within your discretion when you have the hearing on that item and i don't know when that date would
. >> commissioner antonini? >> excuse me, commissioner wu i wanted to clarify that the zone the rm-1 zoning would not allow any additional units on this property. it's at its max mulch maximum right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be necessary and desire, you don't have to necessarily add another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to take a foot and a half off and make flat solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13. >> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned. >> 14 is from top of the finished
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 138 (some duplicates have been removed)